1 Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, St. Louis, MO 63110.
2 Meharry Medical College School of Medicine, Dalton, GA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Dec;211(6):1264-1272. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19452. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
Tertiary care practices increasingly provide second-opinion consultations on reports from outside practices or institutions. This practice of providing a second opinion has been studied in a variety of subspecialties; however, its potential effect on the management of hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) disease is not known. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of significant discrepancies between the initial report and the consultation report, the source of discrepancies, and the frequency of repeat imaging recommendations.
Retrospective chart review was performed for 480 consecutive CT and MRI consultation reports interpreted between January 2014 and December 2015 for patients with HPB diseases whose initial CT and MRI reports were generated at outside facilities. The initial report and the consultation report were independently reviewed and compared by two abdominal radiologists. Discrepancies between the initial report and the consultation report were divided into minor and major differences in the detection or interpretation of abnormalities. Clinical importance was defined as a change in a finding or interpretation that directly impacted management of the patient.
A major discrepancy between the reports was identified in 27-28% of cases split evenly between detection and interpretation of abnormalities. Interreader agreement for categorization was moderate (weighted kappa value, 0.49). In consensus review, the rate of a major discrepancy occurring increased to 32%. Common sources of discrepancy were interpretation of findings as malignant versus benign (49% of cases) and accuracy of staging (15% of cases). Imaging limitations were described in 16% of cases, commonly as a result of an insufficient protocol or poor image quality.
Discrepancies in interpretation resulting in direct implications for clinical management are seen in almost one-third of HPB consultation cases. Second-opinion imaging consultation in the tertiary care setting can frequently impact management.
越来越多的三级保健机构对外院或机构的报告提供二次诊断咨询。这种提供二次诊断的做法已经在多个亚专科领域进行了研究;然而,其对肝胆胰疾病管理的潜在影响尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估初始报告与咨询报告之间存在显著差异的比率、差异的来源以及重复成像建议的频率。
对 2014 年 1 月至 2015 年 12 月期间 480 例连续的 CT 和 MRI 咨询报告进行了回顾性图表审查,这些患者患有肝胆胰疾病,其初始 CT 和 MRI 报告由外部机构生成。由两名腹部放射科医生独立对初始报告和咨询报告进行审查和比较。将初始报告与咨询报告之间的差异分为异常的检测或解释中的较小和较大差异。临床重要性定义为发现或解释的变化,直接影响患者的管理。
报告之间存在重大差异,在病例中占 27-28%,在异常的检测和解释中平分秋色。分类的读者间一致性为中度(加权 Kappa 值为 0.49)。在共识审查中,重大差异的发生率增加到 32%。差异的常见来源是将发现解释为恶性与良性(49%的病例)和分期的准确性(15%的病例)。16%的病例描述了成像限制,通常是由于协议不充分或图像质量差。
在几乎三分之一的肝胆胰咨询病例中,解释上的差异直接影响临床管理。三级保健机构的二次成像咨询经常会影响管理。